Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12231585. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious similarities.
18940852
12231585
A method, performed by a hearing device of a hearing system comprising a hearing device and a user accessory device, the method comprising: receiving, from the user accessory device, secure hearing system data, the secure hearing system data associated with a data type identifier; determining a data type of the secure hearing system data based on the data type identifier; determining hearing system data by applying a security scheme to the secure hearing system data based on the data type; and performing an operation by the hearing device after the hearing system data is determined.
A method, performed by a hearing device of a hearing system comprising a hearing device system and an external device, the hearing device system comprising the hearing device and a user accessory device with a user application installed thereon, the method comprising: receiving, from the user accessory device, secure hearing system data, the secure hearing system data comprising a data type identifier; determining a data type of the secure hearing system data based on the data type identifier; determining hearing system data by applying a security scheme to the secure hearing system data based on the data type; and performing an operation by the hearing device based on the hearing system data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickmann (US 20190335281).
Regarding claim 1, Dickmann teaches a method, performed by a hearing device of a hearing system comprising a hearing device (HD 10, fig 4) and a user accessory device (HD client 40. Fig 4), the method comprising: receiving, from the user accessory device, secure hearing system data (authorization request, fig 4), the secure hearing system data associated with a data type identifier (secret, fig 6); determining a data type of the secure hearing system data based on the data type identifier (authorized or nonauthorized access, fig 6); determining hearing system data by applying a security scheme to the secure hearing system data based on the data type (granting authorization when authorized, i.e. the accessory knows the secret, fig 6); and performing an operation by the hearing device after the hearing system data is determined (accessory controlled by remote control app, fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the act of applying the security scheme to the secure hearing system data based on the data type comprises applying a first security scheme if the data type is a first data type (authorizing access, fig 6).
Regarding claim 3, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the first security scheme comprises a first integrity verification scheme (prove knowledge of secret, fig 6) and/or a first decryption scheme.
Regarding claim 4, Dickmann teaches method according to claim 2, wherein the act of applying the security scheme to the secure hearing system data based on the data type comprises applying a second security scheme if the data type is a second data type (no knowledge of secret leads to second scheme of not granting authorization, fig 6).
Regarding claim 5, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the second security scheme is different from the first security scheme (authorization or non-authorization, fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, Dickmann teaches 6. The method according to claim 4, wherein the first security scheme comprises a first integrity verification scheme and/or a first decryption scheme, and wherein the second security scheme comprises a second integrity verification scheme (they are both integrity verification schemes, fig 6) and/or a second decryption scheme.
Regarding claim 7, Dickmann teaches method according to claim 4, wherein the second security scheme is the same as the first security scheme (they are both integrity verification schemes and are the same in that way).
Regarding claim 8, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the act of determining the data type of the secure hearing system data comprises selecting the data type from a set of data types including a first data type and a second data type (selecting authorization or not authorization, fig 6).
Regarding claim 9, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the first data type is indicative of fitting data (grant authorization as fitting station, fig 6) and the second data type is indicative of control data (remote control app authorization, fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the act of performing the operation by the hearing device comprises performing a fitting-related operation when the data type is indicative of fitting data (fitting station, fig 6).
Regarding claim 11, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the fitting-related operation comprises a storing operation to store the fitting data (fitting station, fig 6).
Regarding claim 12, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the act of performing the operation by the hearing device comprises operating a control parameter of the hearing device when the data type is indicative of control data (remote control app, fig 6).
Regarding claim 13, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the data type of the secure hearing system data comprises selecting the data type from a set of data types including a first data type indicating fitting data (fitting station, fig 6 )and a second data type indicating control data (remote control app fig 6), the fitting data being for configuring the hearing device (fitting station, fig 6 ), the control data being for controlling an operation of the hearing device (remote control app fig 6), wherein the security scheme is one of a plurality of security schemes including a first security scheme associated with the first data type and a second security scheme associated with the second data type (authorizing and not authorizing, fig 6), and wherein the first security scheme is configured to provide a higher security for the hearing device than the second security scheme (not authorizing is a high level of security than authorizing, fig 6).
Regarding claim 14, Dickmann teaches a hearing device configured to perform the method of claim 1 (fig 6, see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Dickmann teaches a hearing device system comprising the hearing device of claim 14, and a user accessory device (44 and 10, fig 6).
Regarding claim 16, Dickmann teaches 16 a hearing system comprising the hearing device system of claim 15 and an external device (fitting station, fig 6).
Regarding claim 17, Dickmann teaches a method, performed by a user accessory device of a hearing system comprising a hearing device (HD 10, fig 4) and the user accessory device (HD client 40. Fig 4), the method comprising: obtaining hearing system data (authorization request, fig 4),; determining a data type of the hearing system data ((authorized or nonauthorized access, fig 6); assigning a data type identifier (secret, fig 6); generating secure hearing system data based on the data type identifier and the hearing system data (authorized or nonauthorized access, fig 6; granting authorization when authorized, i.e. the accessory knows the secret, fig 6); and transmitting the secure hearing system data to the hearing device (fig 6).
Regarding claim 18, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the act of generating the secure hearing system data based on the data type identifier and the hearing system data comprises applying a first security scheme in accordance with the data type being a first data type( not authorizing access, fig 6), or applying a second security scheme in accordance with the data type being a second data type (authorizing access, fig 6).
Regarding claim 19, Dickmann teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the act of determining the data type of the hearing system data comprises selecting the data type from a set of data types including a first data type indicating fitting data (fitting station, fig 6) and a second data type indicating control data (remote control app, fig 6), the fitting data being for configuring the hearing device (fitting station, fig 6), the control data being for controlling an operation of the hearing device (remote control app, fig 6), wherein the first data type indicating the fitting data is associated with a first security scheme (not authorizing access, fig 6), wherein the second data type indicating the control data is associated with a second security scheme (authorizing access, fig 6), wherein the first security scheme is configured to provide a higher security for the hearing device than the second security scheme (not authorizing is a high level of security than authorizing, fig 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights